TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 10^th, 2008 at 6:38pm:

Snip... My point, is that the NAS, as a self appointed body, was NOT the peer review study it claims to be, and rather PhD Psychophysiologist researchers (Non-Polygraph People) are the proper group to have performed such research and/or peer review. NAS was Not free of bias.   ...snip

FYI, one of the NAS report committee members, John Cacioppa, a psych professor at the University of Chicago, wrote something called The Handbook of Psychophysiology. Doesn't polygraph fall in that category? Perhaps you have a copy of it? It's in its third edition...

Another member, John Blascovich, a psych professor at UC-Santa Barbara, lists psychophysiology as one of his main research interests. From his publications listed on the UCSB website, it seems most of it centers around cardiovascular responses to psychological stimuli. Isn't that one of the channels measured by the polygraph?

And yet another member, Richard Davidson, a psych professor at Wisconsin-Madison, researches psychophysiological response to emotional stimuli. Isn't that one of the bases of CQT polygraph?

Then there are those non-psychophysiological people they had on the committee: statisticians, mathematicians, engineers, and gasp, lawyers. It's always the lawyers, isn't it?

And what peer review? The NAS committee had the audacity to only send their report to no less than 17 outside academics and researchers for their comments. Seventeen reviewers renowned in their respective fields. Geez, the last thing I sent in for peer review only had 2 reviewers and they were anonymous. Why'd the NAS even bother?

And further, only one of those worked at a national lab, Sally Keller-McNulty. Real hellraiser that one, heads up the Statistical Sciences Group at Sandia National Labs, former president and Fellow of the American Statistical Association, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, surely she must have biased the NAS report, right?

But it's really all those uppity Ph.D.'s with their beliefs in and adherence to scientific rigor that stick in your craw, right?

Anyhow, given your strong and demonstrably false assertions that there is bias in the NAS report, George must be shaking in his boots at your efforts to have him indicted and extradited back to the US for his efforts in summarizing the existing research on the polygraph into one book...

Btw, the research in George's book is available to anyone with internet access and a library card. I'm sure the U.S. Attorney's Office is convening a grand jury as we speak...

Regards...